academic mobility and immigration

8/9/2019 Academic Mobility and Immigration

1/33

10.1177/1028315305277618 ARTICLEJournal of Studies in International Education Fall 2005

Tremblay/AcademicMobilityandImmigration

Academic Mobility and Immigration

Karine Tremblay

In the lat e 1990s, sus tained economic growth in most Organisation fo r Economic Co-

operation and Development (OECD) countries and the development of the infor-

mation economy led to a considerable increase in migration of highly skilled indi-

viduals, especially in science and technology. Some OECD countries relaxed their

immigration policies to attract highly qualified foreigners to sectors facing labour

shortages. In the context of increasing internationalization of education, academic

mobility appears as a potential source of qualified workers from host countries per-spective, either during their studies or through subsequent recruitment. Study abroad

can be part of a deliberate immigration strategy from the perspective of students. The

article reviews the links between academic mobility and immigration and assesses

impact on immigration policies. Indee d, some OECD countries are allowing foreign

students to apply for resident status from within their territory as part of an immi-

gration recruitment strategy. The impact for sending countries is also envisaged.

Keywords: mobility; foreign students; internationalization; tertiary education;

immigration policy; skille d migration; brain drain; brain circulation;

Aus tra lia; Ca nada; China; France; Germany; India; United Kingdom;

United States

BACKGROUND

In the context of economic globalisation, international trade in goods, ser-

vices, and information is more important than ever. This global economic inte-

gration demands linguistic and cultural knowledge from future partners, which

196

Authors Note:Theviews expressedin this article arethe responsibilityof theauthor anddo notnecessar-

ily represent those of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) or of its

member countries. The author is grateful to Stphane Vincent-Lancrin (OECD/Centre for Educational

Research and Innovation) and Jean-Christophe Dumont (OECD/Non-Member Economies and Interna-

tional MigrationDivision) for useful discussions and to Elizabeth Ruddick (Citizenship and Immigration

Canada, Strategic Research and Statistics) and Eva Egron-Polak (International Association of Universi-

ties) for insightful comments. The author also thanks World Education Services for its invitation at the

Symposium on International Labour andAcademic Mobility: EmergingTrendsand Implications forPub-lic Policy (October 2004), which initiated this article.

Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 9 No. 3, Fall 2005 196-228

DOI: 10.1177/1028315305277618

2005 Association for Studies in International Education

at MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE LIBRARY on January 9, 2015jsi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jsi.sagepub.com/http://jsi.sagepub.com/http://jsi.sagepub.com/http://jsi.sagepub.com/


2/33

can be acquired as part of an individuals education, whereby a period of study

abroad allows students to absorb the cultural and social customs of their hostcountry andthus to actas ambassador forboth their host country andtheirown.

At the same time, it is now widely recognised that a highly educated work-

force is a prerequisite for sustaining economic growth in modern knowledge-

based economies where research and innovation drive economic expansion. The

rising power of technology in the economic sphere and the imperative need for

countries to keep pace with latest technological developments, in particular in

key economic sectors, therefore encourage the internationalisation of educa-

tional courses and student mobility. For sending countries, the underlying ratio-

nale is to benefit from technology acquired at minimal cost upon students

return. For their part, host countries may take advantage of the presence of for-

eign students by allowing some of them access to the labour market in the form

of part-time or seasonal work, participation in research and development work

(R&D) incorporated in educational programmes, or immigration upon comple-

tion of their studies.

Given that student mobility has been made easier in recent years by develop-

ments in communications, faster information flows, and proactive student re-

cruitment policies in many host countries, a growing internationalisation of edu-

cation systems is currently taking place worldwide. This is displayed in the

content of programmes as well as theevolution of student populations, which are

becoming increasingly cosmopolitan. Indeed, the latest data from the Organisa-

tion for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) show that the per-

centage of foreign students enrolled in OECD campuses rose by 34.9% on aver-

age between 1998 and 2002 and by 50% or more in the Czech Republic (81%),Iceland (70%), Korea (60%), New Zealand (159%), Norway (52%), Spain

(47%), and Sweden (67%; Table 1). In absolute terms, more than 450,000 new

individuals crossed borders to study in an OECD country during this compara-

tively short period, with the number of foreign students enrolled in the OECD

increasing from 1,327,000 to 1,781,000 (OECD, 2004a).

In the late 1990s, another migration pattern appeared in some OECD countries

where sustainedeconomic growth and the development of the information econ-

omyled to a considerable increase in themigration of human resources, especially

in science and technology (HRST). Several OECD countries relaxed their immi-

gration laws to attract qualified and highly qualified foreigners, including stu-

dents, to sectors where there were labour shortages. From a host countrys per-

spective, student mobility appears as a potential flowof qualified workers, eitherin the course of their studies or through subsequent recruitment. As a matter of

fact, study abroad can be part of a deliberate immigration strategy from the per-

spective of students. From the point of view of the countries of origin however,

Tremblay / Academic Mobility an d Immigration 197

(text continues on p. 201)



3/33

198

Table1E

xchangeofStudentsinTertiaryEducation(2002):ForeignStudentsEnro

lledasaPercentageofAllStudents(

For-

e

ignPlusDomestic)andExchangeof

StudentsasaPercentageofTotalTe

rtiaryEnrollment

IndexofIntensitya

ExchangeofStudentsWithOtherReporting

ofForeignStudents'

Countries

b(RelativetoTotalTertiaryEnrollm

ent)

ForeignStudentsFrom

IntakeRelativeto

ThroughouttheWorldasa

Organisationfor

NetIntake

PercentageofAllStudents

Economic-

Intake

National

ofForeign

(ForeignandDomesticStuden

ts)

Cooperationand

ofStu

dents

StudentsEnrolled

Students

Index

of

Development

From

Other

AbroadinOther

FromOther

Change

(OECD)

Repo

rting

Reporting

Reporting

2002

1998

(1998=

100)

ReferenceArea

Countries

Countries

Countries

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

OECDcountries

Australia

17.7

12.6

141

3.1

8

.6

0.5

8.1

Austria

12.7

11.5

111

2.2

8

.9

5.5

3.5

Belgium

11.0

m

m

1.9

6

.2

2.8

3.3

Canada

m

2.8

m

m

m

m

m

CzechRepu

blic

3.4

1.9

181

0.6

2

.1

2.1

n

Denmark

7.4

6.0

123

1.3

3

.0

3.3

0.4

Finland

2.4

1.7

138

0.4

1

.2

3.5

2.3

France

10.0

7.7

130

1.8

2

.4

2.5

0.1

Germanyc

10.1

8.2

124

1.8

5

.6

2.6

3.0

Greeced

1.6

m

m

0.3

0

.1

9.5

9.4

Hungary

3.3

2.6

128

0.6

1

.3

2.2

0.9

Iceland

4.1

2.4

170

0.7

3

.3

25.4

22.1

Ireland

5.2

4.8

108

0.9

3

.8

8.6

4.8

Italy

1.5

1.2

124

0.3

0

.7

2.2

1.5

Japan

1.9

1.4

134

0.3

0

.7

1.6

0.9

Korea

0.2

0.1

160

n

n

2.6

2.6



4/33

199

Luxembourg

m

30.5

m

m

m

204.8

m

Mexico

0.1

m

m

n

n

0.9

0.8

Netherlandsc

3.7

m

m

0.6

2

.3

2.3

n

NewZealan

d

9.5

3.7

259

1.7

3

.2

3.9

0.7

Norway

4.8

3.2

152

0.8

2

.6

8.0

5.5

Polandc

0.4

0.5

85

0.1

0

.1

1.2

1.1

Portugal

m

m

m

m

m

2.8

m

SlovakRepu

blic

1.1

m

m

0.2

0

.4

7.4

7.0

Spain

2.4

1.7

147

0.4

1

.6

1.5

0.1

Sweden

7.5

4.5

167

1.0

4

.6

4.0

0.6

Switzerland

17.2

15.9

108

3.0

12

.3

4.8

7.5

Turkeyc

1.0

1.3

74

0.2

0

.2

2.8

2.7

UnitedKing

dom

10.1

10.8

94

1.8

6

.3

1.2

5.1

UnitedStates

3.7

3.2

113

0.6

1

.9

0.2

1.6

Countrymean

5.7

5.8

134.9

1.0

3

.3

4.1e

Partnercountries

Argentinac,e,f

0.2

m

m

n

n

0.4

0.3

Brazil

m

m

m

m

m

0.5

m

Chile

0.9

m

m

0.2

0

.4

1.0

0.6

China

m

m

m

m

m

1.4

m

Indiag

0.1

m

m

n

n

0.9

0.9

Indonesia

n

m

m

n

n

1.1

1.1

Israel

m

m

m

m

m

2.8

m

Jamaica

m

m

m

m

m

10.8

m

Jordan

d,g

2.7

m

m

0.5

0

.1

3.5

3.4

Malaysiag

3.0

m

m

0.5

1

.2

6.8

5.5

Paraguay

m

m

m

m

m

1.1

m

Peru

m

m

m

m

m

1.0

m

Philippines

0.1

m

m

n

0

.1

0.2

0.2

RussianFederationc

0.9

m

m

0.2

n

0.3

0.3

Thailand

h

0.2

m

m

n

n

1.0

1.0

(continued)



5/33

200

Tunisia

1.1

m

m

0.2

n

4.7

4.7

Uruguay

m

m

m

m

m

1.5

m

Zimbabwe

m

m

m

m

m

9.8

m

Source:OECD(2004a).

Note:m=missin

g;n=negligible.Readingthefirstcolumn:12.7%ofallstudentsintertiaryeducationinAustriaare

foreignstudents(fromthroughouttheworld).Reading

thefourthcolum

n:Australiaenrolls3.1timesmoreforeigntertiar

ystudentsthantheaverageOECDcountry,whereasFinlandsproportionofforeignstudentsis0.4

times

theOECDavera

ge.Readingthefifthcolumn:Foreigntertiarystud

entsfromothercountriesthatreportforeignstu

dentsrepresent8.9%ofalltertiarystudentsinAustria.

Readingthesixthcolumn:5.5%ofalltertiarystudentsinAustriastudyinothercountriesthatreportforeignstudents.Column7representsthedifferencebetweencolumn

5andcolumn6.

a.Theindexcom

paresthenumbersofforeignstudentsasaproportionofdomesticenrollmentswiththeaverageorderofmagnitudeforOECDcountries.Thismakesit

possibletorefinethescaleofforeignstudentintakesbasedonthe

sizeofthetertiaryeducationsystem.Anindexhigher(lower)than1reflectsahigher(lower)intakeasa

proportionofenrollmentscomparedwiththeOECDmean.

b.Dataincolumns5to7donotshowtheexchangeofstudentsthroughouttheworld.CoverageislimitedtotheOECDandnonOECDcountriesshowninthetablethat

reportdataincolumn1.Therefore,dataarenotcomparableto

thosereportedincolumn1.

c.Excludingadvancedresearchprogrammes.

d.Excludingtert

iary-typeBprogrammes.

e.CountrymeanexcludesLuxembourg.

f.Excludingtertiary-typeAprogrammes.

g.Yearofreference2001.

h.Thenumbero

fforeignstudentsissignificantlyunderestimated

.Seeannex3(OECD,2004a)fordetails.

Table1(Con

tinued)

IndexofIntensitya

ExchangeofStudentsWithOtherReporting

ofForeignStudents'

Countries

b(RelativetoTotalTertiaryEnrollm

ent)

ForeignStudentsFrom

IntakeRelativeto

ThroughouttheWorldasa

Organisationfor

NetIntake

PercentageofAllStudents

Economic-

Intake

National

ofForeign

(ForeignandDomesticStuden

ts)

Cooperationand

ofStu

dents

StudentsEnrolled

Students

Index

of

Development

From

Other

AbroadinOther

FromOther

Change

(OECD)

Repo

rting

Reporting

Reporting

2002

1998

(1998=

100)

ReferenceArea

Countries

Countries

Countries



6/33

the potential gains related to this mobility (strengthening of cultural and com-

mercial ties, transfer of technology) may be limited as a result of the brain drainfactor if academic mobility translates into subsequent immigration, especially

in times of a shortage of qualifiedlabour in theforeign studentshost countries.

This article therefore reviews the links that exist between student mobility

and immigration and assesses how immigration policies in the key receiving

countries have been tailored to maximise benefits for host countries. Indeed,

some OECD countries are increasingly encouraging growth in international stu-

dents while allowing them to apply for resident status from within their territory

as part of an immigration recruitment strategy. First, it is important to keep in

mind that student flows represent a form of migration of qualified labour and

also a precursor of subsequent migrations, mainly for HRST. Second, recent

changes in immigration policies in the major host countries that result in facili-

tating foreign students settlement are presented, and the magnitude of foreign

students immigration is examined where data are available. The remainder of

the article focuses on the size of the pool of potential migrants in different host

countries and attempts to assess the consequences of this mobility for both the

host countries and countries of origin.

STUDENT MOBILITY:FORM AND PREREQUISITES OFHIGHLY SKILLED MIGRATIONS

Student Migrations:

A Form of Highly Skilled Migration . . .Migrations of students, individuals becoming increasingly well qualified in the

course of their studies, may amount to a kind of highly skilled migration when they

become part of the working population and participate in the host countrys produc-

tion. This combination of student andhighlyskilledmigrationarises in thefollowing

two cases:

First of all, to validate their programme, students enrolled in research programmes are

required to carry out application or research activities in a professional context (private

oracademic) in theform ofdissertationsor theses.To theextent thatsuch activitiescould

be carried out by professional workers, and in most cases lead to the production of a sci-

entific work (publications), they constitute participation in R&D activities in the host

country (in particular at PhD level). This contribution is considered significant in coun-tries where foreign students account for a high proportion of students enrolled in

advanced research programmes: Finland (20%), Spain (19.3%), Switzerland (18.3%),

Sweden (14.5%), the Czech Republic (14%), Korea (13.1%), and the United Kingdom

(10%) (Table 2).




7/33

202

Table2D

istributionofForeignStudentsbyLevelandTypeofTertiaryEducation(2002)

Tertiary-

TypeA

and

Advanced

Advanced

Tertiary-

Tertiary-

Research

Research

To

tal

TypeB

TypeA

Programmes

Programmes

Tertiary

1

2

3

4

5

OrganisationforEconomic-CooperationandDevelopmentcountries

Australia

6.2

89.3

4.5

93.8

10

0

Austriaa

2.4

88.1

9.5

97.6

10

0

Belgium

44.9

50.2

4.9

55.1

10

0

CzechRepu

blic

3.3

82.7

14.0

96.7

10

0

Denmark

11.5

82.5

6.0

88.5

10

0

Finland

0.6

79.4

20.0

99.4

10

0

France

b

8.7

x(4)

x(4)

91.3

10

0

Germanyc

5.9

94.1

m

m

10

0

Hungary

0.2

95.6

4.2

99.8

10

0

Iceland

3.2

96.4

0.4

96.8

10

0

Italy

5.9

93.3

0.8

94.1

10

0

Japan

6.9

x(4)

x(4)

93.1

10

0

Korea

19.3

67.6

13.1

80.7

10

0

Netherlandsc

0.7

99.3

m

m

10

0



8/33

203

NewZealand

28.5

69.6

1.9

71.5

10

0

Norway

b

3.4

87.1

9.5

96.6

10

0

Polandc

0.3

99.7

m

m

10

0

SlovakRepublic

0.5

92.8

6.7

99.5

10

0

Spain

5.7

74.9

19.3

94.3

10

0

Sweden

2.1

83.4

14.5

97.9

10

0

Switzerland

15.0

66.7

18.3

85.0

10

0

Turkeyc

6.6

93.4

m

m

10

0

UnitedKing

dom

15.5

74.4

10.0

84.5

10

0

Partnercountries

Chile

9.2

x(4)

x(4)

90.8

10

0

Indiad

n

x(4)

x(4)

100.0

10

0

Indonesia

a

x(4)

x(4)

100.0

10

0

Malaysia

63.9

x(4)

x(4)

36.1

10

0

RussianFed

erationc

8.8

91.2

m

m

10

0

Source:OrganisationforEconomic-CooperationandDevelopm

ent(2004a)orOECD(2004a).

Note:a=notapplicable;m=missing;n=negligible.xindicatesthatdataareincludedinanothercolumn.Thecolumn

referenceisshowninparenthesesafterx;forexample,

x(4)meansthat

dataareincludedincolumn4.

a.Basedonthenumberofregistrations,notheadcounts.

b.Basedonpart

ialdatacovering81%offoreignstudents.

c.Excludingadvancedresearchprogrammes.

d.Yearofreference2001.



9/33

As well as this first form of participation in active life, internships are often required at

the end of studies to validate students theoretical learning by placements within a com-pany withfunctions suited to their level of qualification,which canthenbe considered as

a kindof highly skilled migration. Clearly, this is not the case for all student migrations.

The actual scale of this combined form of student and highly skilled migration depends

on thedistribution of studentsby level of education, field of study, activity, andfunctions

exercised during their internship.

. . . and Also a Precursor of Subsequent

Highly Skilled Migrations, Mainly HRST

Although student migrations sometimes represent a form of highly skilled

migration, they may also be a precursor of further migrations.

Labour economics studies broadly agree that education has a positive influ-ence on the probability and speed of absorption in the labour market. In this

respect, OECD (2004a) data confirm that the possession of a tertiary degree is

associated with an unemployment rate nearly half of that of individuals with

only upper secondary certificates. Tertiary qualifications also stimulate earn-

ings, with a premium of 48% on average in the OECD area (OECD, 2004a).

At the same time, studies of the labour marketperformance of immigrants in their

host country also underline the following:

Among the immigrant population, the most qualified are in general more easily and

quickly absorbed into their adoptive labour market. Their easier absorption is due to the

mastery of foreign languages associated with a higher level of education; the greater

ability to adjust, gather, andprocess information;andthe possibility of acquiringcountry-

specific knowledge more rapidly.

Proficiency in the language of the host country is an essential factor in the successful

integration of immigrants into the labour market. Linguistic mastery affects not only

immigrants employability but even more so their professional status vis--vis other

workers and their income (OECD, 2003, for a review).

Lastly, possession of a degree from the host country is an additional advantage to immi-

grants. This advantage results mainly from thelifting of entry barriers related to therec-

ognition of their diplomas, thereby facilitating the international transferability of their

embedded human capital. But it also results from the signal given by a degree known

toemployers andthe linguistic andsocialproficiencies thatare generally associated with

education in the host country (knowledge of the institutional framework, functioning of

the labour market, social relations). Immigrants educatedin their hostcountry are thusat

an advantage compared with their peers educated in foreign education systems, and thetimespent jobseekingis lessas a result of their country-specificknowledge (Bevelander

& Nielsen, 1999; Cobb-Clark, 2000).

204 Journal of Studies in Internat ional Education Fall 2005



10/33

Taken together, these factors often confer an advantage on applicants for immi-

gration trained locally in gaining entry to the labour market on arrival and con-sequently in the process of granting visas. Thus, it can easily be seen how student

migrations can be a precursor to subsequent migrations of qualified workers. The

factors detailed earlierwould argue in favour of migratory flows that give preference

to former foreign students from the host countrys point of view.

From the students point of view, familiarity with the host countrys system,

employment practices, job routines, and ways of life has the advantage of limit-

ing the cost and time taken to enter the labour market (Szelenyi, 2003). In this

respect, a survey of French tertiary graduates 3 years after the completion of

their studies corroborates the role of country-specific knowledge in future

migration or settlement decisions. Indeed, the data indicate that younggraduates

who had an experience of mobility during their studies (i.e., at some point be-

tween Grade 6 and the end of their tertiary education) were 1.8 times more likely

to start their work career outside France than their counterparts with no previous

experience of mobility (Murdoch & Perret, 2004). Then, thechoice of country of

study maybe thefirst step of a longerterm strategy of subsequent immigration.

Current Immigration Provisions and

Empirical Evidence Related to the Settlement of

Foreign Students in Their Country of Destination

Given the strong added value of a local degree for a prospective immigrant

and the greater likelihood of fast and smooth labour market integration that it

confers, immigration authorities have a definite interest in favouring the tempo-

rary or permanent entry of former tertiary students when screening candidates

for immigration. This is especially the case at times of skills shortages in the

knowledge-intensive sectors given that students have up-to-date knowledge and

skills and can be immediately productive without extra training. By the same

token,studentstrained abroadoftenface greater labourmarket prospectsin their

country of study than in a third country, and settling in the country of study

incurs fewer psychological costs for them than if migrating to a totally new

country.

Yet despite these obvious advantages, immigration legislations in most coun-

tries have for a long time required that applications for work permits or immi-

grant visas be made from outside their territory to discourage illegal overstay of

tourism permit holders. As a result, foreign students contemplating immigrationin their country of study often hadto returnto their country of originfor thedura-

tion of their visa application processing. The delays, opportunity costs related to

foregone earnings during the waiting period, and travel costs had a discouraging




11/33

impacton prospective candidates, especially so when offered a job in their coun-

try of origin while waiting for their visa.From the late 1990s though, economic growth and growing concerns about

ageing populations in most OECD countries resulted in a worldwide compe-

tition for highly skilled workers (especially in the science, technology, and

health care sectors) that has somewhat changed the overall picture. Immigration

authorities have hadto adapt to thechangingenvironment by amending their leg-

islation to facilitate the entry of skilled workers and in some cases, to offer for-

eign students easieraccess to work and/or residence permits upon graduation. In

most countries, this was done by way of flexibility in existing immigration poli-

cies, but some countries introduced special schemes for highly skilled workers

and/or former foreign students (OECD, 2004c). The remainder of this section

reviews current immigration provisions allowing foreign students to settle in

their country of study temporarily or permanently as well as immigration path-

ways targeting highly skilled workers more generally.

A corollary issue relates to the proportion of student flows that subsequently

lead to highly skilled migration. In fact, there has still been no measurement of

this at the international level, and it is often necessary to make do with incom-

plete data, particularly due to the lack of information on change from the status

of student to holder of a work permit or permanent immigrant status. Available

empiricalevidence is however drawn on wherever available to illustrate the links

between student mobility and immigration.

For the sake of illustration and clarity, this review is limited to the five coun-

tries receiving the largest numbers of foreign students (the United States, United

Kingdom, Germany, Australia, and France, where nearly 73% of foreign stu-dents recorded by the OECD studied in 2002) and Canada and New Zealand

where proactive immigration recruitment policies exist. This phenomenon is

also examined from the perspective of some major countries of origin of

students.

United States

The United States probably receives the most attention for draining and

retaining former students after completion of their studies. Yet, the country has

no specifically targeted measures to encourage the settlement of its foreign

students.

As far as permanent immigration is concerned, the reunification of familieshas traditionally been the cornerstone of the U.S. immigration policy and as a

result represents the largest proportion of permanent immigrants (63% in 2001).

Although immigration based on employer preference is limited (17% of the




12/33


13/33

attractedin large numbers workers from Asia in theaftermath of theAsian crisis.

This pattern is fully consistent with results from Bratsberg (1995), who foundthat the propensity for foreign students to remain in the United States can be

explained by differences in economic and political conditions in sending coun-

tries and therefore varies significantly across countries.

Among foreign highly skilled workers, available data suggest that formerstu-

dents represent a significant contribution of the intake of foreign talent in the

United States. Survey data on 1996 permanent immigrants indicate that 22% of

those acceding to permanent residence through employer preference had prior

student experience in the United States(Massey & Malone, 2002). As far as tem-

porary residence is concerned, a study carried out in 2000 of a sample of 4,200

temporary immigrants holding an H1B visa shows that a similar proportion of

23% previously held a student visa (U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Ser-

vice, 2000). At doctoral level, Finn (2003) indicated that 56% of 1996 foreign

doctoral recipients in science and engineering were still residing in the United

States on a temporary visa in 2001. Yet, stay rates vary greatly according to

fields of specialisation. They are lowest for doctorate recipients in economics

(26%) but reach 63% or more for computer scientists, computer/electrical engi-

neers, and life and physical scientists (Table 3). Obviously, these differences

reflect the stronger propensity for scientists to spend a few years in postdoctoral

programmes abroad at the end of their studies.

Apart from actual migrations, the intentions of foreign students can also pro-

vide an indication of potential migrations generated by student mobility. In this

respect, Figure 1 presents data on the proportion of foreign doctoral students

who intend to stay in the United States on completion of their studies. Studentsintentions are classified on the basis of future plans as well as firm plans (post-

doctoral contracts, offers of work from a U.S. employer). These data underline a

very large variability in the propensity of students to settle in the United States

by country of origin. Potential migrations seem particularly high for students

from India, China, Argentina, Peru, and Iran as well as some OECD member

countries (United Kingdom, Greece, Canada, Germany, and New Zealand) (Fig-

ure 1). Evidence from the European Commission in November 2003 corrobo-

rates this trend:75% of EU citizens whoobtaineda doctoratein theUnited States

reported having no plans to return to Europe (European Commission, 2003).

As a result, despite the absence of immigration provisions that set a preferred

recruitment path for foreign students to settle in the United States, the phenome-

non of education-related migration of skilled workers is far from negligible. Thepathways from student status to permanent residence in the United States are

diverse and usually result from individual initiatives rather than specifically




14/33

designed immigration provisions, contrary to other national situations exam-

ined in the following (U.S. National Science Board, 2003). Facilitating visaconversion procedures is indeed a way of quickly solving specific shortages of

qualified labour.


Percentage of total foreign students (all fields of study), by country of origin

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

India ChinaUn

itedK.

Peru Iran

Nigeria

GreeceAr

gentinaGermanyCa

nadaNe

wZeal.Spain Israe

l

Ch.Taipe

iItaly FranceTurkey

Colombia Chile Egyp

t

Australia JapanM

exico

South

Korea

South

Africa Brazil

Indonesia

Plans (1) Firm plans (2)

Figure 1. Potential and Effective Loss for the Country of Origin of Students who Fin-

ished Their PhD in the United StatesSource:U.S.National Science Board (2000).

Note: Percentage of total foreign students (all fields of study) by country of origin.

1.Proportion of foreign doctoral students who intend to stay in the United States on completion of their

studies.

2. Proportion of foreign doctoral students who received an offer of work from an American employer on

completion of their study.

Table 3 Stay Rates of1996 U.S.DoctorateRecipients byField of Study(2001):

Proportion of 1996 U.S.Doctorate Recipients Who Held a U.S.Tem-porary Residence Visa in 2001

Stay Rates in 2001

Degree Field of Study (%)

All science and engineering fields 56

Agricultural sciences 38

Computer sciences 63

Computer/electrical engineering 70

Economics 26

Life sciences 63

Mathematics 57

Other engineering 58

Other social sciences 34Physical sciences 64

Source: Finn (2003).



15/33

Australia

Australia however has been favouring its former foreign students applying

for permanent residence since 1998 by granting them extra points. But the most

significant policy change occurred in July 2001 when a new visa category was

set up and the Department of Immigration adopted measures allowing some ter-

tiary foreign students in information and communications technology (ICT) to

apply for permanent residence from within the country without requirement of

previous professional experience and without necessarily beingsponsoredby an

Australian employer. The procedures were also simplified (Internet application)

to encourage prospective candidates.

Under this new programme (Skilled-Independent Overseas Student cate-

gory), applicants holding a degree, diploma, or trade qualification delivered by

an Australian institution with at least 2 years of full-time study in Australia canapply for permanent residence within 6 months of completing their Australian

qualification. Other eligibility criteria are based on age (younger than 45), Eng-

lish language ability (to facilitate work in Australia), and the type of post-

secondary qualifications and skills held (to contribute to the Australian econ-

omy). Applicants have to nominate an occupation from the Skilled Occupations

List (http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/pdf/1121i_1.pdf, which is monitored

by the Department of Immigration) and passthe skilled immigration points test.

In this latter respect, foreign students gain additional points by virtue of their

Australian degree. At present forinstance, thepass mark forapplicantsunderthe

regular Skilled-Independent category is set at 120, but this is reduced to 115 for

prospective immigrants eligible for the Skilled-Independent Overseas Student

visa category. Furthermore, since 2003, the number of extra points grantedincreases with thelevel of educationcompleted in Australia: 5 pointsfor an Aus-

tralian degree, diploma, or trade qualification; 10 points for an Australian mas-

ters or honours degree; and 15 points for an Australian doctorate (Australian

Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [DIMIA],

2004). This system virtually ensures thatoverseas students rank amongthe high-

est point scorers and are considered in priority.

Theconditionsof entry arefurtherrelaxedfor studentswith an Australian rel-

ative willing to sponsor their application or those who have lived and studied in

regional Australia or low population growth metropolitan areas.

Different from the United States, Australias permanent immigration

programmehas shifted emphasistoward skilled migration since 1996. In 2002 to

2003, 61% of permanent resident visas came from the skill stream. Of these,Australia granted 8,890 visasto overseas students in the skilled categories under

the new provisions, up 41.7% from 2001 to 2002. ICT professionals, accountants,

21 0 Journal of Studies in Internat ional Education Fall 2005



16/33

engineers, nurses, and teachers formed the main occupational groups (Austral-ian DIMIA, 2004).

These figures on themigration outcomes of theoverseas students programme

can be related to OECD data on foreign tertiary graduates in Australian educa-

tional institutions in 2002 and 2001, respectively, as students must apply for

these visas within 6 months of completing their Australian degree. The resulting

indicators show that the proportion of foreign graduates who permanently set-

tled in Australia upon completion of their studies was 15.2% in 2001 and in-

creased to 18.7% in the second year of the programme (Table 4).

Because the number of overseas students skilled visas granted in 2003-2004

was up 28.8% from 2002-2003 at 11,451, it is likely that stay rates of foreign stu-

dents in Australia will increase further in the coming years. Of these overseas

students awarded visas under the overseas students programme in 2003-2004,20% each originated from India and China, followed by Indonesia (11%),

Malaysia (7%), Hong Kong (6%), Korea (4%), Singapore (4%), Bangladesh

(3%), Sri Lanka (3%), Thailand (2%), Pakistan (2%), Taiwan (2%), Nepal (2%),

Vietnam (2%), and Japan (2%). Less than 12% of these visas were granted to

nonAsians (D. Osborne, personal correspondence, October 13, 2004).

It should also be noted that these stay rates provide no more than a low-range

estimate of actual education-related immigration in Australia because they only

refer to students who were granted a Skilled-Independent Overseas Student

visa. For a full picture, it would be necessary to add conversions of student visas

by virtue of family ties in Australia, especially so as student migrations occur at

an age when families are forming, as well as applications of students for refugee

status. The best-known example in this respect relates to applications from Chi-

nese students after the Tiananmen events. Lastly, some students may apply for

permanent residence more than 6 months after graduation, in which case they

Tremblay / Academic Mobility an d Immigration 21 1

Table 4 Stay Rates of 2001 and 2002 Foreign Graduates in Australia:Propor-

tion of 2001 and 2002 Foreign Tertiary Graduates Granted an Over-seas Student Skilled Visa Upon Graduation

2001-2002 2002-2003

Overseas students granted skilled visa under 2001

immigration provisions 6,274 8,890

Foreign graduates of previous year 41,148 47,638

Stay rate (%) 15.2 18.7

Source:Australian Department of Immigration and Multicultural and IndigenousAffairs (2004) and Orga-

nisation of Economic-Cooperation and Development education database (or OECD education

database).



17/33

would appear underthe regular skill stream statistics. Unpublished data fromthe

Australian DIMIA do indeed confirm that 20% of individuals granted an off-shore skilled-independent visa in 2003-2004 held an Australian qualification.

Similarly, 4.9% of individuals granted a business immigrant visa that year were

switching from a student visa.

Another indication of the strong relationship between student mobility and

subsequent immigrationis thefactthatin 2002-2003, more than 50%of success-

ful General Skilled Migration points-tested applicants claimed bonus points by

virtue of an Australian qualification (Australian DIMIA, 2004).

As far as motivations are concerned, a 1992 survey of Chinese students who

entered Australia between 1986 and 1992 enlightens changes in the motivations

of students with respect to immigration. Indeed, 11.7% of Chinese students sur-

veyed in 1992 reported having come with a primary aim to migrate despite the

fact that no provisions granting preferred treatment to former students existed at

that time. However, 92% of them reported that they would like to become Aus-

tralian citizens (Gao & Liu, 1998). This pattern obviously needs to be inter-

preted in the postTiananmen context given that Chinese students were offered

opportunities to settle in Australia on humanitarian grounds in the aftermath of

the events. Yet, this survey confirms that study abroad sometimes responds to a

deliberate immigration strategy and illustrates how the period of study abroad

and changes in the country of studys immigration policy may pave the way for

immigration by fostering the desire to settle in the country of study, even for

students who did not intend to immigrate initially.

CanadaCanada has also developed paths to allow its foreign students to settle in the

country either on a temporary or permanent basis.

For permanent residence, although there is no specific visascheme for former

students, Canada screens its skilled workers immigrants on the basis of a point

systemand grantsextra pointsto formerstudents by virtueof their greater adapt-

ability to the Canadian labour market. To be eligible, applicants must demon-

strate at least 2 years full-time study at the postsecondary level in authorised

Canadian postsecondary programmes. Eligible former students are granted 5

extra points, a noteworthy advantage over other applicants given that the pass

mark is currently set at 67.

Canada has also developed temporary work opportunities for foreign stu-dents upon completion of their studies. Indeed, graduating students holding a

study permit may apply onshore to remain in the country to work for up to a year

after graduation. To be eligible for these temporary work permits, applicants




18/33

must be engaged in full-time studies at a recognised institution, hold a valid

study permit, and apply within 90 days of graduation from their study pro-gramme. Candidates must also demonstrate a job offer that is related to their

studies to ensure that their temporary immigration responds to labour market

needs. However, unlike otherapplicants without a Canadian degree, the job offer

does not require confirmation by Human Resources Development Canada that

the employment of a foreign national will not impact adversely on the Canadian

labour market.

Therefore, even though the Canadian policy regarding immigration of for-

eign students does not appear as targeted as it is in Australia, it is equally effec-

tive in allowing recent graduates to gain a first job experience in their country of

study immediately after graduation as a step toward employer sponsoring for

further extensions of the work permit or application for permanent residence.

New Zealand

Similar to Australia and Canada, New Zealand revised its Skilled Migrant

visa category in December 2003 in a way that grants foreign students in New

Zealand preferred treatment for permanent immigration.

New Zealand also selects its prospective permanent immigrants on a point

system. Underthe current arrangement, applicants mustqualify for 100 points to

be considered by the New Zealand Immigration Services. In this respect, hold-

inga recognised New Zealand qualification(involving at least2 years of study in

New Zealand) yields 5 points, thereby enhancing the chances of former students.

As in Australia, the conditions of entry are further relaxed for foreign students

with a postgraduate degree (masters or PhD) and for those who studied in spe-

cific areas of absolute skill shortage or identified future growth. Indeed, the job

offer that is required from other applicants under the skilled migrant scheme is

waived for them.

By contrast with the countries described earlier, immigration policies in the

European context have since the mid-1970s traditionally discouraged the mas-

sive entry of immigrants. Yet recent changes to immigration policies have also

occurred in some European countries andsuggest that theglobal competitionfor

skills in the context of ageing societies is now impacting on policy patterns. For

instance, in France, Ireland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, the

recruitment procedures of foreign labour have been simplified in occupations

reflecting strong labour market demand, namely, information technology (IT)specialists, highly skilled workers, and in some cases, biotechnology, medicine,

health care, and education professionals, by waiving labour market tests. Simi-

larly, Germany developed a special programme to recruit IT specialists.




19/33

It should be noted that these immigration procedures only apply to non

European Union (EU) citizens, whereas EU citizens are able to live and work infellow EU member countries without obtaining special permission. Therefore,

the relation between student mobility and immigration is posed in very different

ways depending on the countries of origin of students. For those of EU origin,

immigration in the country of study is mainly a matter of personal choice and

labour market opportunities, whereas for nonEU citizens, obtaining a work

permit is a prerequisite to settle in the country of study.

France

In France, restrictive immigration policies were adopted in 1993 (so-called

Pasqua laws) that deterred foreign students and young professionals from set-

tling in France. As a result, only 9% of foreign students who arrived in Francebetween 1994 and 1996 have obtained a 5- or 10-year residence permit after

three renewals of their annual student residence permits, and in those cases this

was mostly on the grounds of family reunion or work motives. The conversion

rate was slightly higher for students of African origin (11%) than for those from

the Maghreb area (8%; Thierry, 2001).

In 1998 however, policy makers acknowledged thatthese provisions deprived

the country of a source of human capital and undermined national interest in the

global competition for the brightest minds. The French immigration law was

thus revised in 1998, and thenew policy was inspired by theU.S. visa provisions

for highly skilled immigrants, with the creation of a special status easing the

conditions of entry for scientists, scholars, and certain highly skilled profession-

als. Yet language barriers, a less favourable labour market, and the lack of

recruitment flexibility and salary incentives in French public research and uni-

versities somewhat mitigated the impact of these reforms. According to

Guiraudon (2002), France appears to lag behind the United States, Germany,

and the United Kingdom in its quest for highly skilled foreign labour.

In January 2002, the French authorities went one step further: Two internal

circulars asked the immigration officers to look favourably at requests for long-

term residence permits made by previous foreign students in France (OECD,

2003). This is a sign that former students are clearly seen as valuable candidates

for the French knowledge-based economy.

Germany

In August 2000, Germany introduced a green card programme to recruit IT

specialists of nonEU origin, granting them temporary residence for up to 5

years. To be eligible, candidates have to demonstrate a job offer with an annual




20/33

salary exceeding EUR 51,000 or a university degree in the IT field, thereby

offering opportunities for temporary migration to foreign students in the ITfield. Initially designed for3 years,the programme wasextended until late 2004.

By July 2003, 15,000 green cards had already been issued.

In addition, the German authorities have been debating an extensive reform of

the immigration legislation since 2000 and passed a new law in July 2004 that

aims at facilitating the entry of highly skilled workers. According to the German

Interior Minister,The new law gives [Germany] the opportunity to take part in

the race for the worlds best brains(German Parties Reach Immigration Law

Agreement, 2004). Under the new provisions, highly skilled workers can obtain

permanent residenceimmediately. Besides, Germany now allows its foreign stu-

dents to work duringthe courseof their studies and to extend their residence per-

mit for a year upon graduation to find work in Germany. Since these new regula-

tions have just come into effect in early 2005, no impact on actual movements is

yet visible.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, two programmes were launched in 2002 and 2003 to

allow skilled individuals to work in the country.

In January 2002, theHighly Skilled Migrant Programme waslaunched to pro-

vide talented people with exceptional skills the opportunity to come to the

United Kingdom to seek work. Under this programme, individuals with excep-

tional abilities or experience can settle in the United Kingdom without capital

investment or job offer requirement. The programme is also open to individuals

already present in the country on a work permit who want to switch to this settle-

ment programme. The provisions also comprise tax incentives to prospective

self-employed applicants. The selection of applicants is made on the basis of a

point system, with different income and experience requirements for applicants

younger than 28 years of age. Permits to work or conduct business are initially

awarded for 1 year, with the possibility of extension for a further 3 years. After 4

years of temporary residence, the applicant can then apply for permanent

residence.

Overall, these new provisions make it much easier for skilled individuals to

work and live in the United Kingdom and constitute a revolutionary change to

theUnited Kingdom immigrationlaw dueto thewaiving of thejob requirement.

In addition, a Science and Engineering Graduate Scheme (SEGS) was launchedin October 2003 to address skills shortages in thescienceand engineering fields.

The scheme encourages nonEuropean Economic Area (EEA) graduates in

physical science, engineering, and mathematics from recognised U K universi-




21/33

ties to pursue careers in the United Kingdom. Graduates in an approved subject

have the possibility to remain and work in the UK for 1 year after completingtheir studies. Applications are accepted either onshore or offshore within 1 year

of finishing the degree. The new legislation then allows successful applicants to

switch to the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme. The Science and Engineering

Graduate Scheme therefore provides a golden path toward permanent residence

to science and engineering graduates. However, special provisions exist to limit

the extent of brain drain as students whose UK education has been sponsored by

a government or international scholarship agency need to obtain written permis-

sion from their sponsor beforeapplying forthe scheme. Because the programme

came into effect in the summer of 2004, data are not yet available to assess the

magnitude of stay rates.

The different pathways by which foreign students can obtain permanent (or

long-term) residence in the host countries examined earlier are summarised in

Table 5. This comparative picture clearly underlines the ambition of the Austra-

lian and New Zealander policies, where selected foreign students are granted

permanent residence directly at the end of their studies with no job offer

required. By contrast, the U.S. policy is pragmatic and highly efficient in retain-

ing foreign students in the country despite the absence of specific criteria. The

UK immigration provisionsalthough revolutionary for the countryremain

fairly cautious. Indeed, permanent residence is the outcome of a step-by-step

process involving a trial period of temporary residence. Lastly, Canada, France,

and Germany have adopted a dual policy whereby foreign students can reach

permanent or long-term residence directly or obtain a temporary residence

permit and apply for a conversion later on.

Student Mobility and Immigration

From the Perspective of Selected Sending Countries

The relationship between student mobility and subsequent immigration can

also be apprehended from the perspective of major sending countries. As sug-

gested by Australian and American data, India and China are major providers of

skilled labour in developed knowledge-based economies. It is thereforeinterest-

ing to examine to what extent student mobility is encouraged and how these

sending countries deal with the nonreturn of their overseas students.

In China, student mobility has long been constrained by geopolitical consid-

erations. The turning point occurred at the end of 1978, when Deng Xiaopingand his supporters launched massive economic reforms and the open doors pol-

icy, one component of which was to promote the training of scientists and tech-

nologists in Western institutions with an aim to modernise the country. Starting




22/33

217

Table5P

athwaysforForeignStudentstoOb

tainPermanentorLong-TermResid

encePermitsinTheirCountryofStudy,

A

ccordingtoImmigrationProvisions

Long-Term/Permanent

TemporaryWorkPermits

OtherTemporary

ResidencePermitsfor

TargetingForeignStudents

WorkPermits

SkilledIndividualsand/or

UponGraduation

forSkilledIndividuals

ForeignStudentsUponGraduation

Australia

Skilled

-Independentscheme

Passtheskilledimmigrationpointtest,with5to

15

pointsforanAustraliandegree(outof115/120)

Skilled-IndependentOverseasStudentscheme

Onshoreapplicationpossible

Wit

hin6monthsofgraduation

Specificoccupations

Passtheskilledimmigrationpointtest,with5to

15

pointsforanAustraliandegree(outof115)

No

jobofferrequired

Canada

Onshoreapplicationpossible

Within3monthsofgraduation

Jobofferrequiredbutnolabour

certificationneeded

Maximumdurationof1year

Furtherextensionspossiblewith

employersponsoringandlabour

certificationorprovincial

nomination

Skilled

Immigrationscheme

Passtheskilledimmigrationpointtest,with5

pointsforaCanadiandegree(outof67)

France

Specialstatuseasingconditionsof

entryforscientists,scholars,and

someprofessionalworkers

Specialstatuseasingconditionsofentryforscien-

tists,scholars,andsomeprofessionalworkers

Instructionstoimmigrationofficerstolookfavour-

ably

atapplicationsofforeignstudents

Germany

Maximumdurationof1year

Gr

eenCardProgramme

Forinformationtechnologyworkers

Effectivebetween2000and2004

Nojobofferrequiredifuniversityin

informationtechnologyfield

Maximumdurationof5years

Possibilityforhighlyskilledworkerstoapply

dire

ctlyforpermanentresidence

(continued)



23/33

218

NewZealand

Skilled

Immigrationscheme

Passtheskilledimmigrationpointtest,with5

pointsforaNewZealanddegree(outof100)

No

jobofferrequiredifmasters/doctoratedegree

ors

tudyinspecificareas

UnitedKingdom

ScienceandEngineeringGraduate

scheme

Within1yearofgraduation

HighlySkilledImmigrationscheme

Passapointtest

Nojobofferrequiredforhighly

skilledindividuals

Durationof1yearwith3years

extensionpossible

Possibleafter4yearsoftemporaryresidence

UnitedStates

H1

bscheme

Maximumdurationof6yearsfor

tertiarygraduates(furtherexten-

sionpossibleifapplicationforper-

manentresidence)

Noquotasforresearchers

H1

cscheme

Fornurses

TN

scheme

ForNAFTAcitizensinsome

occupations

NoquotaforCanadians

Emplo

yerPreferencescheme

Nea

rlyentirelygearedtowardsskilledindividuals

No

specificprovisionsforforeignstudents

Source:OECDdatabaseoneducation.

Table5(continued)

Long-Term/Permanent

TemporaryWorkPermits

OtherTemporary

ResidencePermitsfor

TargetingForeignStudents

WorkPermits

SkilledIndividualsand/or

UponGraduation

forSkilledIndividuals

ForeignStudentsUponGraduation



24/33

from 1978, the number of Chinese state-funded students sent abroad increased

steadily, in association with barriers to prevent brain drain. In addition, the 1985

emigration law allowed ordinary citizens to hold a passport provided they could

obtain invitation letters and sponsorships from overseas. This policy change

resulted in a new flow of self-supported students going abroad.

As illustrated by Table 6, nonreturn has not been an insignificant phenome-

non overthe 1978 to1999period, asonlya third ofstudentsreturned to China on

average. Nonreturn has been most common for students trained in the United

States, of whom only one out of six have returned over the period. By contrast,

returnrates have been higherin Australiaas well as in Europe, where returnrates

range from 37.4% in Germany to 47.6% in France (Zhang & Li, 2001).

Nonreturn was especially important in the aftermath of the Tiananmen eventsin 1989 as most Western countries granted residence to Chinese students and

temporary workers on humanitarian grounds. Because many of these settlers

were highly educated, the Chinese authorities responded by reviewing their stu-

dent mobility policy in a way that limits the costs to China in case of subsequent

immigration while not discouraging mobility. Indeed, Chinas ambitious mod-

ernisation goal depends critically on the adoption of advanced Western technol-

ogies. The official view (attributed to Deng Xiaoping) is that it does not matter if

only half or even fewer of these students come back as long as some do (Liu &

Norcliffe, 1996). The open doors policy has not been abandoned, but prospec-

tive international postgraduate students have been required to pay back their tui-

tion fees or work in China for 5 years before being allowed to leave the country.

Besides, state support to students going to Australia, Canada, and the UnitedStates has been abandoned.

In the recent years, the worldwide competition for skilled labour associated

with Chinas rapid economic development have resulted in a growing demand


Table 6 Return Rateof Chinese Studentsby Destination (Period 1978to 1999)

Destination Return Rate (%)

Total 33.3

Australia 44.9

Canada 37.4

France 47.6

Germany 37.4

Japan 37.4

United Kingdom 46.8

United States 14.1

Other 11.5

Source:Zhang and Lee (2001).



25/33

for Chinese skilled workers, as the latter can not only contribute to the knowl-

edge economy of their host countries but also facilitate the development of part-nerships with China and access to the growing Chinese market. Although the

size of thecountry does notmake this outflow of skilled individuals tooharmful,

the Chinese authorities are concerned that the permanent loss of talent targets

the best and brightest, thereby reducing the international competitiveness of the

country (Zhang & Li, 2001).

The Chinese authorities have responded to these pressures for migration by

encouraging international students and nonresident skilled workers to return

through various benefits upon return (tax-free construction materials and inter-

national money transfers, fiscal incentives for investments, economic opportu-

nities, and the possibility to have a second child with no penalty). Chinas strat-

egy therefore relies on supporting study abroad while encouraging the return of

international students with free movement in and out of the country. Besides,

educated citizens living abroad are increasingly treated as a resource to be net-

worked for knowledge exchange and entrepreneurial partnering in service to

national economic development (U.S. National Science Board, 2003).

A similar approach is taken in India.Startingin theearly1990s, Indias exter-

nal policy has evolved toward an international opening of its economy. In the

context of privatisation and globalisation of the economy, knowledge workers

are seen as essential resourcesto contribute to the development of the skill-inten-

sive sector, especially the IT industry. There is now widespread recognition in the

country that remittances from nonresident Indian workers who have settled per-

manently in foreign countries or temporarily work abroad represent a major

source of foreign exchange earnings and investment. A concerted drive has beenlaunched to attract funds from them as part of the policy to attract foreign invest-

ment. For the period 1990 to 1992, investments from nonresident Indians repre-

sented 11.2% of total foreign investment approved by the government, and steps

were taken to enhance this share (Awasthi & Chandra, 1994).

Besides, there is now increased evidence that some of the research scholars

who migratedoverseas in thepast have returned to India andstarted industries in

the high-technology areas, prompted by the desire to serve the motherland and

the investment opportunities provided by the government to nonresident Indians.

These industries benefited from their technology linkage with foreign partners on

the one hand and low-cost domestic manpower on the other (Prasad, 2004).

CONCLUSIONThepast decadehas witnesseda dramatic growthin student mobilitythrough-

out the world. The growing internationalisationof education systems and econo-

mies encourages students to be more mobile to develop linguistic, cultural, and




26/33

social skills that are essential to be competitive on increasingly global labour

markets for highly skilled individuals. But the growth in student mobility is notonly the result of individual decisions. Host countries increasingly see interna-

tional education as an export activity that yields economic returns and market

their tertiary education programmes internationally. From sending countries

perspectives, student mobility often helps address excessive demand for ter-

tiary education in the context of constrained domestic offer. All these factors

have resulted in the dramatic growth of foreign enrolments in most destination

countries.

At the same time, the development of knowledge economies requires highly

skilled human resources that have been in shortages in many OECD labour mar-

kets over the recent years. The strong demand for skilled individuals in the con-

text of growing mobility of studenthighly skilled individuals by definition

has naturally resulted in the development of a new migration channel whereby

individuals enter a country to study and are subsequently recruited to work there

temporarily or permanently.

Immigration policies in the main destination countries of students have been

amended in the recent years in a way that provides skilled workers an easier

access to residence permits. Within this trend, most destination countries have

designed specific schemes to favour former students in the selection process of

prospective immigrants, most often by providing them a step-by-step path

toward permanent residence. These policy changes have revived concerns of

brain drain by some countries of originof students.It is thereforeuseful to assess

the consequences of student mobilityfor both receiving and sending countries.

Beneficial Effects of Student Mobility

for the Host Countries . . .

Host countries of international students derive many benefits from this mo-

bility, which lead them to open up their education systems even further.

From the education system perspective, the integration of a foreign popula-

tion expands sources of financing of national education systems. This additional

contribution may be direct (payment of tuition fees by foreign students) or indi-

rect through the growth in enrolments and the possibility of achieving the criti-

cal mass required to engender economies of scale. The direct financial contribu-

tion is most important in countries that have adopted a policy of charging tuition

fees at actual cost. The possibility to generate additional revenues is then a pow-erful incentive for educational institutions to receive more foreign students, and

therefore it stimulates quality improvements to enhance competitiveness. The

indirect contribution deriving from economies of scale is by contrast indepen-




27/33

dent of tuition fees charged. It can be quite considerable for universities in small

countries/regions where the local student population is limited. This alone mayjusti fy receiv ing more foreign students.

Student mobility also yields benefits of an economic nature, deriving from

the contribution of foreign students to the domestic demand in the host country.

For instance, studentsexpenditure on tuition, accommodation, food, and lei-

sure was estimated at US$12 billion in the United States for 2003, making U.S.

higher education the fifth larger service export (Institute of International Educa-

tion, 2003). In Australia, education services now represent the third largest ser-

vice export, at 13.1% of the total (OECD, 2004b). But this kind of contribution

may be even more important at the local level, especially for university towns of

moderate size. Other economic advantages of a qualitative order may also result

from opening domestic campuses to foreign students. National students facing

an international environment in the course of their studies may enhance their

ability to adjust to different cultures, which will in turn have an impact on their

productivity, future incomes, and thus the countrys future tax revenues.

Lastly, student migrations help to relieve stresses on the skilled labour market

through transfers of skills. Compared to other skilled foreigners, young for-

eign graduates are at an advantage to perform well on their host countrys labour

market. Estimates for Australia indicate that the brain gain of professionals

between 1997 and 2000 represented about 2% of the stock of employed profes-

sional workers and 3.6% of the stock of managers and administrators (Austra-

lian DIMIA, 2004). Although not all brains gained were previous students, the

aforementioned analysis showed that foreign students have made a significant

contribution to Australias intake of skilled workers. Furthermore, thiscontribu-tion is likely to rise in thefuture with theintroduction of theSkilled-Independent

Overseas Student immigration programme.

Most industrialised economies now face skill shortages and compete to

attract talent from abroad. Because foreign students are ideal candidates in

this respect, it is interesting to examine the proportion of foreign graduates in

the annual output of OECD education systems as it reflects the actual pool of

skilled human resources that may subsequently migrateeither temporarily or

permanently.

Table 7 indicatesthat with theexception of Australiaand theCzech Republic,

the proportion of foreign graduates is generally greater in advanced research

programmes than at lower stages of higher education, highlighting the concen-

tration of foreign students in highest levels of education and the potentialcontri-bution to their host countries in case they migrate upon completion of their

studies.




28/33

More than one out of five graduates from advanced research programmes

(masters or PhD) are alien in Denmark (22.7%), France (21.7%), and Sweden

(21.5%), whereas the proportion of foreigners among graduates reaches one out

of four in the United States (24.7%) and Australia (25.8%) and a third in Swit-

zerland (34.9%). By contrast, Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and New Zea-

land appear less successful in securing a large pool of potential migrants to par-

ticipate in their knowledge economy (Tremblay, 2005).

. . . and More Varied Effects for Countries of Origin

For sending countries, the impact of student mobility is also positive, hence

its nearly universal encouragement by sending countries. However, the balance

may be more mitigated according to specific circumstances that shall be kept in

mind by policy makers in both sending and receiving countries when designing

policy instruments related to student mobility.

From the education perspective, student mobility offers individuals addi-

tional opportunities of training outside of their country, which are beneficial in

two ways.


Table 7 Percentage of Foreign Citizens Among Tertiary Graduates,by Level

of Education and Programme Destination (2002)

Advanced

Tertiary-Type A Tertiary-Type B Research Programmes

Australia 26.8 n 25.8

Austria 9.4 m 9.7

Belgium 8.6 6.5 13.7

Czech Republic 1.8 8.2 7.1

Denmark 7.2 9.8 22.7

France 6.9 m 21.7

Germany 7.4 3.9 8.7

Iceland 1.9 2.5 n

Italy 1.2 m 2.1

New Zealand 7.0 7.4 10.2Norway 4.7 3.0 17.0

Poland 0.2 m m

Slovak Republic 1.2 m 3.0

Sweden 5.4 4.3 21.5

Switzerland 8.1 m 34.9

United States 5.8 m 24.7

Source:Tremblay (2005).

Note:m = missing;n = negligible.



29/33

Quantitatively, student mobility may help expand participation in tertiary

education when the domestic offer is insufficient to meet a growing demand.There is increasing evidence that emerging countries in the Asia-Pacific region

face unmet demand in tertiary education, which can be satisfied by sending stu-

dents abroad (OECD, 2004b). Obviously, this pattern of unmet demand and this

quantitative benefit are more common in developing countries.

Student mobility also offers benefits of a qualitative nature through transfers

of technology, which are by contrast relevant to both the developing and the

developed world. Indeed, study abroad may allow students to be trained in cen-

tres of excellence that do not exist domestically because the country does not

have thecritical mass of students or a sufficient level of technology to make such

educational provision. The alternative of education abroad then makes it possi-

ble to train highly qualified labour more cheaply. These transfers of technology

may be particularly important in highly advanced and specialised fields where

the development of centres of excellence requires massive investments that are

hardly justifiable for smaller, less developed countries. From the technology

transfer perspective, the mobility of doctorate students is especially relevant

because their research, although conducted abroad, can meet the needs of their

country of origin.

Empirically, the economic impact of technology transfers for sending coun-

tries was examined by Kim (1998), who modeled foreign education as a process

of knowledge import that contributes to economic growth in developing coun-

tries when students return with embedded human capital. Empirical tests of his

model support the idea that the number of students enrolled abroad in a devel-

oped country (with higher technology level) is positively associated with thegrowth rate of per capita income in the sending country, and the effect is even

stronger when considering the students enrolled abroad in technology-related

fields.

Apartfrom transfers of technology, interaction of students with the local pop-

ulation during their studies can give them a better knowledge of the language,

culture, and socialcustoms of their host country. This knowledge as well as their

personal networks of fellow students and friends may later make them ideal

ambassadors for economic and commercial relations. As a matter of fact, this

benefit is not contingent upon the student returning to his home country. The

Australian policy of admitting students of Asian origin on a massive scale

clearly illustrates this strategy. Study abroad can also enhance diplomatic ties.

The U.S. Institute for International Education (2003) recalled that more than 50of the world heads of state in 2001 had come to the United States during the

course of their studies or early in their careers.




30/33

The corollary of these benefits for sending countries is obviously the risk that

some of their students will be captured by their host countries labour market andwill not return to work in their country of origin. Although the risk of nonreturn

is a reality, its degree depends on the family status of the migrating student, the

existence of institutional safeguards, and the comparative employment opportu-

nities in the origin and destination countries.

Besides, the impact of nonreturn depends on the duration of the student emi-

gration and whether the migrant maintains professional ties or subsequently re-

invests in hishomeland. Concerns related to theloss of human capital associated

with foreign students should therefore be played down in several respects.

First, increasing evidence shows that the international mobility of the highly

skilled is changing of nature, and rather than a permanent emigration (brain

drain), the international mobility of the highly skilled is increasingly character-

ised by a circular flow of human capital (brain circulation) between the coun-

tries of origin and destination. Technology transfers then occur throughout the

migrant career. The new skills and technologies acquired abroad can then be

used to boost living standards in the home country.

Second, there is also increasing evidence that migrants not only send back

remittances to their home country but also invest in the development of technol-

ogy sectors in their country of origin, taking advantage of low labour costs and

their technological expertise. The Indian and Chinese experiences illustrate how

countries that have exported highly skilled workers abroad can capitalise on

their expertise and Western-trained skills to set up outsourcing companies back

home.

Finally, in the context of unmet domestic demand for education, sending stu-dents abroad allows countries to expand participation in tertiary education at no

cost because students enrolled abroad are often self-financed. Therefore, even if

only a fraction of them returns, the net gain in human resources for the sending

country remains positive, while indirect gains from the nonreturning students

may occur through remittances and foreign investment. The only condition for

this gain to be positive is that the marginal cost of sending a student abroad

remains marginal for the sending country.

In concluding this analysis, it clearly appears that the benefits of student

mobility are positive for the knowledge-intensive receiving countries, hence

their proactive international student recruitment policies. Besides the trade and

economic gains generated by this type of temporary migration, foreign students

are increasingly regarded as future workers of the knowledge-intensive sectorsof their host countries, and over the past few years, immigration policies in the

main countries of destination have adapted to this new environment by facilitat-




31/33

ing the settlement of foreign students. In sending countries, student mobility

also confers numerous advantages that probably outweigh the adverse impact ofthe nonreturn of some students in the long term, at least for the larger sending

countries where skilled labour is available in sufficient numbers. The situation

of smaller developing countries may be less favourable if the nonreturn of for-

eign students results in absolute skill shortages.

Bearing in mind the many advantages offered by student mobility, both for

them personally and for their countries of origin and destination, this type of

mobility deserves further encouragement. The introduction of safeguards to

ensure an adequate rate of foreign students returning home would certainly help

capitalising on studyabroad to transfer technology and know-howin the sending

countries. For example, making available a greater number of bursaries condi-

tional on returnwould minimisethe risk of countriesinvestingin a studentsedu-

cation to the benefit of another country. Another alternative may be to provide

nonreturning students with incentives to invest and maintain ties in their country

of origin. Greater coordination and cooperation between students countries of

originand destinationappears as a promisingway to share theadvantageslinked

to international student mobility in a fair way. For instance, countries of destina-

tion could limit opportun ities to settle and immigrate for foreign students whose

studies abroad have been sponsored by their countries of origin.

REFERENCES

Australian Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Af-

fairs. (2004).Population flows: Immigration aspects. Canberra, Australia.

Awasthi, S., & Chandra, A. (1994). Migration from India to Australia.Asian andPacific Migration Journal,3, 393-409.

Bevelander, P., & Nielsen, H. (1999).Declining employment assimilation of im-

migrants in Sweden: Observed or unobserved characteristics?(CEPR Dis-

cussion Paper No. 2132). London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.

Bratsberg, B. (1995). The incidence of non-return among foreign students in the

United States.Economics of Education Review,14, 373-384.

Cobb-Clark, D. (2000). Do selection criteria make a difference? Visa category

and the labour market status of immigrants to Australia.Economic Record,

76, 15-31.

German parties reach immigration law agreement. (2004). Retrieved October,

2004 from http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1238924,00.html

European Commission. (2003).Weakening growth in investment and increasingbrain drain: Two major threats to the European knowledge-based economy.

Retrieved October 2004, from http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/press/

2003/pr2511en.html



academic mobility and immigration

Documents